Let's settle this once and for all

I'm sorry to answer for my friend:
He left the WBA not to fight John Ruiz
He left the IBF not to fight Chris Byrd
he gave up the WBC so as not to fight a rematch with Vitali Klitschko.

 

You answered nothing.

 

Yep, me too.

 

My top 5 heavies
1. Muhammad
2. Larry
3. Lennox
4. Joe
5. Big George

 

Holmes over Louis, I’d be interested in your reasoning.

 

Sorry to all the huggers, but Holmes is not an option. His best win is nearly 35 year old Norton. Second best is a talented but underachieving Witherspoon. That doesn't get you there.

And don't give me the "head to head" nonsense, because who did he prove it against? Back to Norton and Witherspoon.

There is no metric by which Holmes could be #2 except total defenses--but he was never undisputed, was he? And he ducked fighters.

Time for the Holmes worship to end. Bottom of the top ten.

 

Think Holmes is better. That's it. Better chin, better recuperative powers, super high boxing IQ, could stay on the outside against Joe as he was bigger and longer.

 

Holmes never beat the nr. 1 guy in the division besides himself (an argument can be made for Norton, though), but did Lewis ever besides Holy? Vitaly? Was he nr. 1 at the time?

 

I mean, must of us on this board? Ranking classic boxers is not a small part of Classic Forum.

 

By the age Holmes was for those fights Lewis had arguably lost to Mercer and very inarguably lost to McCall, so not a great argument that.

Not that I object much to having Lewis higher, but that argument isn't good.

 

William fight sure Witherspoon was prime Holmes as was Norton. Mercer fight i thought was a clear Lennox win even if he had to work for it. And overall I just think Lennox had better wins that's my main point.

 

Factoring the "people's champ" aspect, it's Mike Tyson.

 

Lewis' best win is the 37-year-old Holy after a yawn festival. Norton - Holmes were great.

 

Well, no. At 35 years old, Norton was really not that great. He had been beaten before, and subsequently, much more comprehensively by the way.

Lewis' best win in context was probably Vitali.

 

Mercer could have gone either way. MIght have a look on Eye on the Ring, but my guess is that fewer have Holmes losing against Witherspoon than Lewis against Mercer. Never heard anyone say it was a clear Lewis win before. And I think Holmes, at 33, was a bit on the slide for Witherspoon. Certainly for Williams, at 35.

McCall, which of course was a TKO loss, and Mercer came smack in Lewis physical prime. If you want to say his actual prime was later, sure, but then we get to Rahman.

Holmes was only beaten like that once and that was coming out of retirement against Tyson at his absolute peak. In the losses department, Lewis looks worse than Holmes. There just is no way around that.

If you want to make a case for Lewis, it's his wins.